 I would like to address the, in my mind, exploitation of Abuse Survivors who are approached to participate in research projects in general and the study of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) in particular. Research, to my thinking, objectifies all who take part in research and in so doing, their voice is lost. They are relegated to a status similar to lab rats, though the latter's participation is involuntary. I can hear the rebuttal that people volunteering are not OBjects but SUBjects and therefore are free to tell their stories. I submit a disagreement with this assumed response by enlarging on the word SUBject. A subject is the noun usage of the word. The verb, to Subject someone or something to a project, is, according to Webster's definition, to bring under the authority or control of whoever is implementing the research. Thus, subjection automatically places the participant in a lesser, need-to-comply position that is the hallmark of Paternalism, where being told what is expected is the springboard for further data gathering. There are an increasing number of books written by Mutliples and/or their therapists, papers and articles addressing DID by Mental Health Professionals both well known and not so well known, and the phenomenon of this extreme end of the Dissocaitive spectrum has gained more recognition during the past few years. However, much of the material is misinformed by popular stereotypical presentation of DID previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder. Gathering data to support a theory, for example, the validity of DID as a valid diagnosis, one could reasonable conclude such material is best gathered from those who are multiple. I ask how scientists are able to adhere to objectivity and retain an objective perspective while compiling purely subjective material? The very roots of DID are based in the response and reaction of the Multiple to TRAUMA. It is humanly impossible to be objective in relating emotional and reactive response to pain and multi -faceted abuse that has affected every fiber and apsect of ones life. How can such Subjective data be documented as Objective supporting proof of a phenomenon when required by scientific research? In the past years of working with, and supporting many Multiples, I have observed that each person differs in system structure, system population,( referring to those inner alternate personalities. I use the words insider, part, alter, interchangeably) inner community size,(number of alters and fragments), composition of insider roles, and levels of co-consciousness which may or may not include the Host,(who, in turn may not be the core personality, or who may share the role with another), the Host being the one usually in control of the body for outside daily functioning. Given the HUGE disparity between indiivdual Multiples' compostion, functioning, structure and levels of healing, on what will the scientitst choose to write his findings ? For example, there might be three insiders in one system and over a thousand alters and fragments in another, and many numbers inbetween, each bringing their own set of variables to the table. While there may be a few commonalites that define some of the roles filled by the parts, such as protector, nurturer, recorder etc., and the definition of Dissociative Identity Disorder found in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States, that is OBjective material acceptable to Scientific thinking and record. These data do not in any sense describe the experienced world in which a person with DID lives on a daily basis. My writing addresses how Scientific research objectifies participants by seeking to encase them in a prescribed framework of Objectivity which, to me, silences the subjective experience the subjects might contribute. Subjective material can only be OBJECTIFIED by making interpretations of the subjects' verbal or illustrated input. It is accomplished by reframing their words into psychological terminology, outright disbelief and toning down of any material that would be deemed too graphic, or beyond the understanding of most readers to acknowledge as being true and not an attention getting, drama seeking,hysterical or false memory recounting. I am not a scientist nor do I pretend to have a bent towards such intellectual cogitation, and I am aware of the multitude of assumptions and errors I can bring up in my ignorance, but I do ask HOW,in researching DID, record of the following questions can be transcribed into Objective langauge and still be an accurate statement of the vagaries of DID ? Let me list some of the questions I would ask the participant to consider before being accepted into a research project. ** Are you fully informed as to the goal of this research project, of your part in it, and are you willingly participating with no pressure being applied from any other party ? ** Have you been fully informed as to what happens to the material you present, where it will go, to whom, and how it will be used? Are you completely comfortable with all aspects of the Project and aware you have the choice to discontinue participation at any time if this is your wish? ** How long have you been Diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder? ** What is your acceptance or non-acceptance of this diagnosis, meaning, are you fully informed as to its definition and you feel it answers any question as to what is happening in you? In other words, are you convinced this diagnosis applies to you? ** Are you aware of cohesion or chaos within your known system. (The word known, is used because it is sometimes possible for more insiders to surface as time goes on. This asks the state of your system today) ** Are you co-conscious wth all your insiders, meaning you can dialogue with them in your head and know what is happening when someone other than you has control of the body. Also, do you know if they are aware of eachother? ** Do you feel accurate information can be gathered when you are not fully aware of how many or few parts you have ? ** Given the huge diversity of factors listed above stating that DID can differ greatly from person to person, how do you see the result of this project being helpful to Multiples? In what way, and how, do you think you can benefit from responses gathered from vastly different systems than your own combined into one overall evaluation of DID? ** Do you think a scientific Objective study will educate Therapists treating the Subjective material you are bringing to this project, and if no, what would you change to focus on your healing? ** Do you feel total credence will be given to your contribution where it might cross scientific theory and what has so far become accepted regarding DID - for example, that it is a rare phenomenon, or that your story is too far fetched to be realistically true? ** How do you feel about the scientist researcher who interviews you, knowing he or she has not treated any Multiples and not knowing how they would react to acting out or abreacting alters should they become triggered? ** Would you want a support person with you in all interviews, and/or to act as liason between you and the researcher? ** Do you think the researcher can support his proposal and form a valid conclusion based on part of a system and not the whole since not all insiders would be likely to come out for different reasons? Thus, how do you feel about the validity of the whole process? ** Would you wish your therapist to act as liason, or interpreter between you and the scientist ? ( my own opinion here is negative as I see such an action immediately placing the subject in a paternalisitc situation where the therapist and researcher would align as authorities who, "know best" how to handle things. There would be the abuse survivor's tendency to submit to those in the power position. Perhaps feel intimidated when faced with a preset agenda and feeling again the need to please, to not fail, to get it right throughout the length of the project.) ** Are you satisfied and comfortable with the setting in which the project is implemented. With those you know will be present, and the conditions under which you will share your story. e.g. if you were asked to have it taped or vidoe-taped etc? ** Why are you wanting to participate in this project ? There are many more considerations one could take into account but these would be some I would wish the participating person to think about before agreeing to be part of DID research. ******************* My own thoughts question: Bottom line, WHO is really benefitting from such a project? How is the Multiple helped by proving to them that DID exists, a condition they are all too familiar with since they live and struggle with it daily ? Is it helpful for them to know others, singletons, will believe that DID is a valid diagnosis - and then what? How does such a project impact the healing process for the DID client? I mentioned in the beginning of this article that the objectifying of the Mutliple in research, removes their vocie. Even a lab rat can squeak,but without understanding rat speak, (or rat squeak) the researcher is left to guess, interpret, analyze or assume all such squeaks as he/she sees fit. The rat, however, has NO say however much it may squeak. Unless, like some animal researchers who spend their lives living with their creature of choice become so familiar with their habitat, behaviors and language they are accepted and a mutual understanding is born. The question of language in reasearch of the Multiple becomes crucial if there is to be valid and accruate documentation. My question remains, as to how MUCH in the final analysis and conclusion, will be the voice of the Multiple ? In relating their subjective inner experience, how much will be couched in psychological terminology for the sake of Professionalism, Scientific Objectivity as spoken by the researcher? After all, the kudos go to the writer of the paper, journal article and discoverer of a new paradigm - focus is usually on the new discovery and its author than what it has cost the project participants to bare their souls and have their vulnerabilites and deepest fears stripped naked for all to see. Does not the credit, wanted or not, sought or not, but definitely earned, go to those who have taken the greatest risks, and sometimes life threatening risk at that. It is an exploitation of the abuse survivor if there is any CHANGE made in what is shared by him or her in the relating of how DID is experienced by them. It objectifies all participants where they are seen purely to fulfill a criteria of a diagnosis and meet the scientist's agenda. Much good and informed material covers the physiological,neurological, psychological and emotional effects of severe trauma on the brain but this speaks only to how physical brain chemistry changes under severe stress levels, and psychological and emotional reaction to pain, fear and extremes of abuse. I think such knowledge is valuable and certainly goes to offering a much needed understanding of certain aspects of trauma based conditions. This is Science. It is factual, objective, well analyzed, interpreted and documented for those interested in purely theorectical argument and discussion. My interest is in the person-oriented, humanistic approach which opposes objectifying, silencing, door-stepping anyone, but those in particular whose isolated world, if it is to be exposed to public viewing, should, in my book, be planned, formatted and implemented according to what would enable all participants,( hosts and alters) feel free to share what is THEIR reality as a Multiple. To share without fear or expectation their words will be revamped, rephrased, misinterpreted, minimized, exaggerated or in any way misrepresented. This can only be accomplished if the particiants seen as " Subjects" by researchers are allowed to BE Subjective. If this does not occur they are Objectified and relegated to become Objects for research purposes devoid of feeling and distanced from the heart. Robbe-Grillet said, "a new form will always seem more or less an absence of any form at all, since it is unconsciously judged by reference to the consecrated forms". It is my thought that this is THE pitfall into which those seeking to understand Dissociative Identitity Disorder, fall all too easily. Seeking to fit Multiplicity into the wrong diagnostic consecrated forms - Schizophrenia, Borderline Disorder, BiPolar etc., rather than rely on empirical data gathered from those whose life experience is not referenced by scientific principles. I will end with the question - Is Dissociative Identity Disorder best understood and treated by research projects whose goal is to prove a theory, or would working through the healing process where the perimeters of discourse allow for both subjective and objective thinking as needed and relevant, be a more productive way to follow ? The GOAL, in my mind, where DID is concermed is NOT about theory or a therapeutic modality based on scientific findings but whatever empowers an already disempowered abuse survivor to regain a sense of Self, whether that be connected to esteem, image, value, confidence or smply to learn what it is to live with dignity and acceptance. Goessoftly Retired Therapist Permission for reprints is required. http://www.goessoftlyishere.com  
 | Normalizing and Demystifying DID | DID and Littles.(Child/Young Alters) | ISOLATION | Mono's Disbelief | Distortion: Good and Evil | ASPECTS OF BODY CHANGES | Relationships | Across The Board | Across The Board | FORGIVENESS | I am BAD | Headaches | LYING AND DECEPTION | LOST and LOSS | EYES | Controversy. Research projects. | Feeling is Healing | Alone and Aloneness | VICTIM or VICTOR ? | TEARS | Medication and DID | DID Emergency Room/Casualty and Crisis Center Guid | Acknowledging The Inside Community | The NO TALK Rule. Silencing. | | THE HEALING PROCESS | DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER | POETRY | Biographical Entries | THE OTHER SIDE OF LIFE | STORIES FOR LITTLES (Pigmus and friends) | SEEDLING THOUGHTS TO WATER | | Return Home | Great Links | Sign/View Guestbook | |
||